Mike Wilbon calls for Novak to be suspended.
Just now on PTI they showed the clip of Novaks flagrant foul. Wilbon then went on to say that no matter what Novaks intent was he was reclass and should be suspended. I think this is way overboard. It was obviously a hard foul but not deserving of suspension.
January 23rd, 2012 at 5:59 PM ^
What does Charlie Weis think?
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:03 PM ^
Spelling is not my strong suit my apologies.
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:15 PM ^
Sorry. You must not enjoy your whippings courtesy of the Grammar Gangsters.
January 23rd, 2012 at 11:44 PM ^
You would think a board full of people who love pointing out errors would understand that grammar =/= spelling.
January 24th, 2012 at 9:44 AM ^
and spelling are not equal, correct. However, spelling is within grammar. So more like
gram(spelling)mar.
January 23rd, 2012 at 9:13 PM ^
do you now, or do you ever want to, go to UM? Spelling is sort of important. At least it used to be. Especially on the application.
January 24th, 2012 at 10:33 AM ^
Twitter txt app sez no! LOL! U only nd 2 get ur pnt acrs f u wnt 2 b acptd.
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:05 PM ^
Zack Novak's new motto on the court. Or maybe it should be "40 minutes of reclassness".
*Think Narduzzi's "60 minutes of unnecessary roughness" quote for proper context.
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:38 PM ^
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:01 PM ^
Honestly I can see the argument there. He was going for the ball, but that was a very dangerous play.
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:00 PM ^
BraveWolverine730 calls for Wilbon to be suspended for being a moron.
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:17 PM ^
don't you mean moran?
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:31 PM ^
"Contestant 102, your word is Moran."
"Could you use it in a sentence?"
"Get a brain, Morans."
January 23rd, 2012 at 8:04 PM ^
Wilbon is one.
January 23rd, 2012 at 9:25 PM ^
MW is a flat out racist. He is a shame and a blemish to Northwestern and all of mankind!
January 23rd, 2012 at 9:26 PM ^
MW is a flat out racist. He is a shame and a blemish to Northwestern and all of mankind!
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:01 PM ^
Good thing no one cares what Mike Wilbon thinks.
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:02 PM ^
I hate to pull the often sophomoric "he just hates Michigan card," but ... Wilbon has actually SAID as much.
The guy is a first-class hack and can't even be bothered to leave his home in Scottsdale, Arizona when his work is in Washington, DC. Suffers from the problems of other "celebrity" journalists.
Novak will not be suspended.
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:02 PM ^
but I wouldn't have argued if he was tossed from the game. We can't really judge intent, but it was a pretty hard foul that didn't get close to the ball.
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:03 PM ^
Just like most helmet-to-helmet hits in football, Novak's foul was rightfully called an "intentional" foul, but at the same time, it should be chalked up to two athletes running at different angles at full speed on a collision course.... sometimes "violent" outcomes will occur no matter what the intent was.
A foul... sure.
Suspended... no. Save that for the fights and when a player bltantly grabs a guy mid-air and changes his direction during the foul
January 23rd, 2012 at 9:37 PM ^
What was the difference between Novak's intentional,obviously illegal , dangerous to the victim and the foul by Gohlston on denard? Oh right, he plays for MSU.
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:04 PM ^
"Stop that. I know what you're doing. ... Be an analyst. Don't be a douchebag. You know I went for the ball." - Zach Novak
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:58 PM ^
T-sizzy hath spake.
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:59 PM ^
Double post courtesy of the Department of Redundancy Department.
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:05 PM ^
Mike Wilbon has an established anti-Michigan bias.
I just tend to ignore whatever he says.
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:06 PM ^
Wilbon has to say crap like that to keep people watching his show. After all, he does have a pretty cushy gig at ESPN, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to lose it. Besides, he is a Chicagoan; even though he somehow managed to get into NW, he was probably an Illinois fan growing up.
In other words, he is probably conditioned to see Michigan as his "biggest rival." Welcome to the club, Wilbon. Please take a ticket and visit the waiting area on the left.
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:11 PM ^
That's goofy and I'd exspect Novak to do the same thing if ever in the same situation. You don't suspend people for normal actions of the game. It would be different if he was trying to hurt the kid. He was going for the ball trying to break up a fast break ANY player in basketball would have done the same thing , it's what you are coached to do. It's like suspending a football player for laying out a WR when he goes for the ball. It's part of the game if you don't like it watch curling
January 23rd, 2012 at 7:09 PM ^
That wasn't a normal foul. If anyone commits that foul in a pickup game, there's going to be a fight. If that happens in the NBA, it's an ejection and game or 2 suspension.
He may not have intended to hurt him but the foul was carried out in such a way that there was a high likelihood the guy would get hurt. In contesting like that, you're not only responsible for intent, you're responsible for the result. I don't think he should be suspended but I think an ejection would have been a defensible decision.
January 23rd, 2012 at 10:39 PM ^
The NBA has gone soft, but I don't think they've gone THAT soft. They probably would have labelled it a flagrant foul, but I highly doubt it would have warranted an ejection.
Go back 20 years or so and fouls like that were commonplace in the NBA. You NEVER gave up a layup if you could clobber the guy.
January 23rd, 2012 at 11:12 PM ^
I basically agree on your second point. The NBA's cracked down on hard fouls like Novak's enormously in the wake of Artest going into the crowd at the Palace. The biggest thing the people in the league office are trying to avoid is fights erupting from hard fouls. Fouls that were acceptable as a matter of course in the 80s and 90s are now receiving game bans.
Novak's foul was right on the edge of a flagrant 1 and flagrant 2 (automatic ejection). It didn't seem to have the malicious intent of most flagrant 2s (youtube "flagrant 2" and you see some really dirty plays, about half of them involving Andrew Bynum) but the fact that Novak made contact at the height of elevation would make them take a hard look at it.
January 24th, 2012 at 3:19 AM ^
I was going to reply to your reply lol , but by your own account have made your first point moot. Flagrant 2 fouls are given where it appears the purpose was to cause bodily injury and are automatic ejections , fine and possible suspention. Flagrant 1 fouls you shoot your free throws and retain possesion. Novak was'nt trying to hurt the kid he was going for the ball. it's up to the ref if it warrants an ejection and they clearly did not think it did. There is no fine or suspention int he NBA for a Flagrant 1 foul so why should novak be suspended for one in college.
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:13 PM ^
that Novak jammed on Northwestern. I mean, who wouldn't be?
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:18 PM ^
It depends on intent. The NCAA and big 10 only look at that. You don't get sanctioned for a tough foul by itself.
I don't think Novak intended to hurt anyone.
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:19 PM ^
No one gets suspended for making a play between whistles. I could see it if he punched someone after the whistle cough* Tom Gholston
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:22 PM ^
who is Tom Gholston?
EDIT- Did he punch Kenny Dewens or Troy Willfork?
January 23rd, 2012 at 7:26 PM ^
thanks. I thought we were having fun with broadcasters saying the wrong names...
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:20 PM ^
Anyone have a link?
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:23 PM ^
I'm of the belief that I don't think that Novak was going for the ball. Or at the very least thought he could get to it. There's no way you can convince me he thought he was going to be able to block that. However, he was just trying to deliver a hard foul to prevent an and-one. He was not intending to hurt anyone. If there's no intent for harm I don't think there should be a suspension. I could see someone making a somewhat reasonable argument for a one-gamer, but I personally think that would be unnecessary and undeserved.
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:37 PM ^
...but he says this about a lot of things, so take it for what it's worth. I personally believe Novak's foul is not worth a suspension, but as it involved Michigan and was against a Michigan player, of course Wilbon mentions it, right?
January 24th, 2012 at 12:34 AM ^
That was awesome. I wonder how much of that was real.
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:30 PM ^
It's basketball. If he can't watch a hard foul, then he can close his eyes. What does his fat ass know about basketball anyway? He went to Northwestern!
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:32 PM ^
Mike Wilbon makes a lot of dumb comments. He has proven to me that he not very good at his job.
January 23rd, 2012 at 7:12 PM ^
This I actually disagree with. Much like Colin Cowherd, Steven A. Smith, Jim Rome, Skip Bayless and a handful of others, Mike Wilbon's job is not to be knowledgeable or insightful about sports. His job is to be polarizing and to take a strong (often extreme) stance on an issue to make it newsworthy. If Wilbon said, "Novak has a hard foul that resulted in an intentional foul" no one would care. But when he takes it a step farther and takes an extreme stance, fans either strongly agree or strongly disagree, they talk about it, and it makes Mike Wilbon's existence relevant.
If you listen to sports talk radio, almost every "sports" personality does this. The reality is, there is only so much sports to report, and saying stuff that everyone agrees with gets you nowhere. Unfortunately, stirring the pot is the name of the game at ESPN nowadays, and also unfortunately, it works.
Look, we have a big thread about it. And it wouldn't surprise me if some Arkansas blog is saying "See, Wilbon agrees that that asshole Novak should be suspended for his cheap shot on our guy."
January 23rd, 2012 at 7:22 PM ^
January 23rd, 2012 at 7:41 PM ^
Although I share your sentiment, there's really not another game in town so I don't see how they're dwindling. Until there's another network that shows national sports 24/7 (and does so effectively), ESPN can show whatever they want and people will watch it. And as much as those talking heads piss people off (myself included) millions of poeple still tune in.
I said the same thing when MTV started showing Real World episodes. I said that if they keep showing these stupid shows instead of music videos, they'll go out of business. Now you can't find a music video on MTV to save your life, Teen Mom 2 runs 16 hours a day and it's more popular than ever.
January 23rd, 2012 at 8:48 PM ^